What is the definition of intelligence?

[leopard]

Bush thinks evolution is a fact - do you?

http://news.in.msn.com/international/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1718558

Not bad. How about yourself? Do you accept evolution as a fact?

 

[Moridin]

I do not "believe" in evolution in the same way Mr. Bush "believes" in his religion. I simply accept the fact of evolution due the the massive amount of converging evidence for evolution as a general conclusion.

Would you ask someone if they "believe" in the atomic theory, for instance? Its not a belief, its knowledge, really. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Would you call someone who accepts the atomic theory or Newtonian mechanics as an atomist, a Newtonist or a gravitationalist? Naturally, there is no fundamental difference in mechanism between the so-called "microevolution" and the so-called "macroevolution" other than time.

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Bush for finally coming to terms with that particular aspect of biology.

 

[Chi Meson]

I believe that the Theory of Evolution is valid.

I also believe Bush when he says that he is "way out of my lane, here." That goes for just about anything, right?

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with Moridin that the poll question is poorly stated.

 

[leopard]

I do not "believe" in evolution in the same way Mr. Bush "believes" in his religion. I simply accept the fact of evolution due the the massive amount of converging evidence for evolution as a general conclusion.

Have you studied the evidence yourself, or are you just assuming that the scientists know?

It's perfectly OK IMO to say evolutionist. Yes, you could also use the term 'gravitationalist'.

 

[Moonbear]

I do not "believe" in evolution in the same way Mr. Bush "believes" in his religion. I simply accept the fact of evolution due the the massive amount of converging evidence for evolution as a general conclusion.

Would you ask someone if they "believe" in the atomic theory, for instance? Its not a belief, its knowledge, really. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist". Would you call someone who accepts the atomic theory or Newtonian mechanics as an atomist, a Newtonist or a gravitationalist? Naturally, there is no fundamental difference in mechanism between the so-called "microevolution" and the so-called "macroevolution" other than time.

I would also like to congratulate Mr. Bush for finally coming to terms with that particular aspect of biology.

Well stated!

And, yes, there is a problem with using the term evolutionist, especially in context of a poll asking about belief.

With regard to evolutionary theory, I am convinced that the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented are valid with regard to the overall conclusion that evolution does occur. There is wonderfully exciting work happening in genetics, specifically the field of epigenetics, that might provide new insight into the mechanisms of HOW evolution happens, and how quickly it can happen.

 

[leopard]

"Do you have faith in evolution?" would have been a bad way to put it. Faith is belief without evidence. We cannot know anythihg for sure, can we? So ultimately everything comes down to belief. There is a big difference, however, between beliefs based on observations and beliefs based on nothing.

 

[waht]

"Do you have faith in evolution?" would have been a bad way to put it. Faith is belief without evidence. We cannot know anythihg for sure, can we? So ultimately everything comes down to belief. There is a big difference, however, between beliefs based on observations and beliefs based on nothing.

We think that evolution is right, not believe. Humans have a tendency to believe in just about anything without taking the time to look at evidence.

 

[leopard]

What's your definition of 'belief'?

 

[franznietzsche]

What's your definition of 'belief'?

Any of the correct ones: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

An opinion or conviction, confidence in an unprovable statement, faith, or religious tenets. None of them apply.

 

[leopard]

OK, so belief = faith? Then belief is not interesting at all.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I accept evolution, gravitation, the germ theory of disease, Mendelian genetics, and special relativity. I accept some basic forms of atomic theory, general relativity, and quantum mechanics, without fully understanding how they interact or over what domains they apply. I am unconvinced (but not hostile) toward human-driven climate change. I am deeply skeptical about M-theory. I doubt that many traditional herbal remedies are effective. I reject astrology, homeopathy, phrenology, distance healing, and other pseudosciences.

 

[WarPhalange]

I don't need to believe.

 

[Proton Soup]

i believe in intelligent evolutional design

 

[Cyrus]

i believe in intelligent evolutional design

That's an oxymoron.

Well, technically you're right. You "believe" in intelligent evolutional design, because that's NOT evolution. So you'd have to believe in it.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's an oxymoron.

Well, technically you're right. You "believe" in intelligent evolutional design, because that's NOT evolution. So you'd have to believe in it.

so you think evolution is not intelligent, but stupid?

 

[franznietzsche]

so you think evolution is not intelligent, but stupid?

I think that anthropomorphizing an essentially stochastic process is either intellectually lazy, dishonest, or foolish. Take your pick.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He also said that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not connected to his religious believes.

"I did it based upon the need to protect the American people from harm," Bush said.

link in the op

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

When are people going to realize that one can't believe anything the man says?

I'll bet the fundamentalists are grabbing their sick bags.

 

[Proton Soup]

I think that anthropomorphizing an essentially stochastic process is either intellectually lazy, dishonest, or foolish. Take your pick.

for a stochastic process, it sure has a lot of determinism

 

[Ivan Seeking]

for a stochastic process, it sure has a lot of determinism

Really, how is that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Irony: For most of us, the theory of evolution is taken completely on faith. I might be able to defend the theory to a point, but all in all, my knowledge is based on hearsay, Scientific American articles, PBS, and a couple of classes. And I'm sure this is true for almost anyone who's not a biologist or geneticist.

For most, "belief" in evolution is really based on "faith" in science.

 

[Proton Soup]

Really, how is that?

it's influenced by living organisms. either life is deterministic, or it's random. personally, i believe i have a bit of influence in my own outcome, so it's not entirely random.

 

[Evo]

it's influenced by living organisms. either life is deterministic, or it's random. personally, i believe i have a bit of influence in my own outcome, so it's not entirely random.

That has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, which is not science. Perhaps you weren't referring to ID? This also isn't Philosophy.

 

[Proton Soup]

That has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, which is not science. Perhaps you weren't referring to ID? This also isn't Philosophy.

nope, it's a poll. I'm not sure why you people want to debate.

i'm also not convinced that ID has nothing to offer in terms of science.

 

[franznietzsche]

it's influenced by living organisms. either life is deterministic, or it's random. personally, i believe i have a bit of influence in my own outcome, so it's not entirely random.

Stochastic processes are the sum of the large set of individually deterministic processes.

Ex: Diffusion--the motion of individual particles in a a gas is essentially deterministic. Take two rooms, each filled with a unique gas. Remove the barrier between them and the gases will diffuse and mix. That is a stochastic process driven by the deterministic motion of the individual gas particles.

Evolution isn't much different. Read up on evolutionary game theory. If you have a population of individuals with varying strategy vectors, fitness is a function of the strategy vector. The portion of the total population posessing each strategy vector will change as certain strategy vectors lend themselves to higher reproductive rates. This is a stochastic process.

You are confusing determinism, with systems where probabilities overwhelmingly favor a particular outcome (certainly not the case in general with evolution. Look up genetic drift and founders effect for more information on that). In the case of the diffusion example, there is no reason why the particles must diffuse. It is perfectly possible that the particles in each room could have a set of velocity vectors that would prevent them from mixing extensively. It is however insanely unlikely. Look up statistical mechanics for more information on that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

it's influenced by living organisms. either life is deterministic, or it's random. personally, i believe i have a bit of influence in my own outcome, so it's not entirely random.

You can do very little of affect evolution. So I would say your statement is false as applied to evolution in a historical context. Also, the ability to reason is itself a product of evolution. Why do you make the choices that you do? But given our ability to affect the environment and the survival of species, not to mention that we are now very close to "designing" life, including human life, I would argue that unintelligent and intelligent design now affects evolution.

For the first time [nearly so], we may truly be the masters of our genetic destiny.

 

[LowlyPion]

That has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, which is not science. Perhaps you weren't referring to ID? This also isn't Philosophy.

Bush's problem is that likely everything looks like Intelligent Design to him from where he's sitting in the cheap seats. He probably thinks English is Intelligent Design as it apparently remains pretty much an elusive mystery to him still.

Just 41 more days.

 

[Proton Soup]

Stochastic processes are the sum of the large set of individually deterministic processes.

Ex: Diffusion--the motion of individual particles in a a gas is essentially deterministic. Take two rooms, each filled with a unique gas. Remove the barrier between them and the gases will diffuse and mix. That is a stochastic process driven by the deterministic motion of the individual gas particles.

Evolution isn't much different. Read up on evolutionary game theory. If you have a population of individuals with varying strategy vectors, fitness is a function of the strategy vector. The portion of the total population posessing each strategy vector will change as certain strategy vectors lend themselves to higher reproductive rates. This is a stochastic process.

You are confusing determinism, with systems where probabilities overwhelmingly favor a particular outcome (certainly not the case in general with evolution. Look up genetic drift and founders effect for more information on that). In the case of the diffusion example, there is no reason why the particles must diffuse. It is perfectly possible that the particles in each room could have a set of velocity vectors that would prevent them from mixing extensively. It is however insanely unlikely. Look up statistical mechanics for more information on that.

that's really interesting. have you looked at Stephen Wolfram's book? a very simple mechanical process can produce some very random output. it kind of implies that all the randomness from quantum physics may simply be a function of a bunch of underlying order. it would certainly add to your clockwork orange theory. yet, essentially, you're saying there's no randomness at all, it's just that there's more information there than we can process, so we perceive it as random.

 

[Proton Soup]

You can do very little of affect evolution. So I would say your statement is false as applied to evolution in a historical context. Also, the ability to reason is itself a product of evolution. Why do you make the choices that you do? But given our ability to affect the environment and the survival of species, not to mention that we are now very close to "designing" life, including human life, I would argue that unintelligent and intelligent design now affects evolution.

For the first time [nearly so], we may truly be the masters of our genetic destiny.

well, if i believe franz*, then I'm a clockwork orange and, alas, i can do nothing because i have no free will. it's all just an illusion.

 

[franznietzsche]

that's really interesting. have you looked at Stephen Wolfram's book? a very simple mechanical process can produce some very random output. it kind of implies that all the randomness from quantum physics may simply be a function of a bunch of underlying order. it would certainly add to your clockwork orange theory.

The idea of a simple mechanical process producing nearly random output is not novel, it is the basis of random number generators in fact. Or for that matter, literally the roll of a dice is a simple mechanical process that produces an effectively random output. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics (no I have not read Wolfram's book, so I am commenting only on your statement, not his). Furthermore, the idea that the randomness of quantum physics is simply an apparent condition resulting from incomplete information is highly unlikely. See Bell's Inequality/Theorem. Local reality (which is what you described, the idea that quantum randomness is the result of hidden variables added with a condition that no information can propagate faster than the speed of light) is fundamentally incompatible with quantum mechanics--meaning that imposing the condition of local realism onto quantum mechanics gives results that do not match experimental data. Quantum mechanics without local realism does match experimental data.

yet, essentially, you're saying there's no randomness at all, it's just that there's more information there than we can process, so we perceive it as random.

That is an overstatement. There certainly is randomness.

Main Entry:
random
Function:
adjective
Date:
1632

1 a: lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern b: made, done, or chosen at random <read random passages from the book>
2 a: relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence <random processes> b: being or relating to a set or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of occurrence <a random sample> ; also : characterized by procedures designed to obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>

All that the term 'random' means is that there are a set of possible outcomes with definite probabilities. Return to my example of a dice roll. In the strictest terms, it is a perfectly deterministic act, and if we were in possession of perfect information the outcome of every roll could be known in advance, hypothetically. However, that does not make it not random. Even with perfect information we would still find the 1/6 chance for the six sided die to land on any given face. The statistical analysis is still relevant and applicable.

 

[binzing]

so you think evolution is not intelligent, but stupid?

Technically yes, there's no being or brain behind it, lol. In a looser meaning of stupid, the asnwer is also yes, I mean look at the jellyfish, what the hell evolution, what the hell.

 

[Proton Soup]

webster defines randomness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms

not really familiar with bell's theorem, but it looks like a biggie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

 

[Moridin]

Irony: For most of us, the theory of evolution is taken completely on faith. I might be able to defend the theory to a point, but all in all, my knowledge is based on hearsay, Scientific American articles, PBS, and a couple of classes. And I'm sure this is true for almost anyone who's not a biologist or geneticist.

For most, "belief" in evolution is really based on "faith" in science.

Be so that it may, a solid conviction in the utility and power of science must surely be justified, due to the fact that we almost constantly reap the benefits of science, at least from a pragmatic standpoint. I would argue that the same conviction does not necessarily exist in many other areas of discourse. Naturally, if two people disagree about a certain conclusion or point in science, they can simply go out and test our hypotheses against reality. This option is also not available in many other areas of discourse, where "truth" or "fact" is often left to interpretation or simply opinion. Politics, of course, can sometimes be such an area, even though it's not by definition impossible to use empirical evidence in that fields, although it may be in others.

Mostly rambling, i know =)

 

[vanesch]

Irony: For most of us, the theory of evolution is taken completely on faith. I might be able to defend the theory to a point, but all in all, my knowledge is based on hearsay, Scientific American articles, PBS, and a couple of classes. And I'm sure this is true for almost anyone who's not a biologist or geneticist.

For most, "belief" in evolution is really based on "faith" in science.

I think that if you have a good enough general scientific background, that even rather professional readings about evolution are open to reading. I worked my way through the (french translation of) "Evolution" https://www.amazon.com/dp/1405103450/?tag=pfamazon01-20
(the french translation because I found it in a bookshop nearby).
I take it that it is a professional introduction, and it is perfectly readable for a non-biologist.

 

[wildman]

Intelligent design is not science because it doesn't play by the rules. One of the rules of science is that you don't invoke the supernatural. It is a purely practical rule. We can explain anything by invoking the supernatural which would mean nothing would get done.

Now keep in mind, that doesn't mean it isn't true (that is a different issue). It just means it isn't science.